I met the new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport yesterday at Parliament House. I will say right at the start I think he is going to be a very good Minister.

Yes, there is a problem. That is, most people who read this forum have had 10, 20 or 30 years involvement in the aviation catastrophe and non-reform in this country. Our new Minister, Michael McCormack, has now been involved with the Transport portfolio for just over 2 weeks.

The most important discussion we had was about changing the Act. I asked him if he would support the Barnaby Joyce decision to go ahead with the changes as amended by Anthony Albanese. It became clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was not going to proceed that fast. He rightly said that he wanted to come up to speed on the issue, but would be making a decision promptly. We can’t expect more than that.

We in the industry – especially the general aviation industry – will just have to wait and hope that these important legislative changes to the Act will go through. As other posters on this thread have stated, it is really the key to being able to move forward and get our aviation industry thriving again.

I’m more positive than I have been for a long time. We will see what happens.

Folks,
We must keep the pressure up, keep those letters rolling in --- to the Minister's office and his electoral office.
How about an online petition, who is going to organise that ?
Tootle pip!!

And still you don’t get it, Dick.

Were his lips moving at the time? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Thanks Dick, a big thanks.
Well done.

Lead. What don’t I get?

If you were in the Deputy Prime Ministers position what would you have done?

Or do you think I have been misled? What evidence do you have?

Remember I started the Australian Skeptics!

Yes. His lips were moving.

I’d have fobbed you off, of course.

Then I’d have called in my advisers and asked: What’s in it for me if I give Dick what he wants, and what are the risks to me if it don’t?

The answers would determine the meaning of the word “promptly”.

If the answers were that there’s nothing in it for me and no risk to me, “promptly” means a long time.

The bit that you never get is that government is not about the objective merits of an issue.

That’s why, for example, there’s an RFFS but no Tower at Ballina...

Perhaps the minister has asked his advisors: Does this person truly represent the Aviation industry in this country, or it someone using his influence to peddle his particular view of how things should be?

Traffic. Do you think the proposed ACT changes are not necessary? Do you think I am mistaken in believing the changes are necessary for the future of our industry?

Do you think my “ particular view” on this is wrong?

Look forward to an honest and direct answer.

Traffic. I have never claimed or implied my personal views represent the “ aviation industry”. Just that Australia could have a growing aviation industry if we concentrate on removing unnecessary costs.

Do you have an angry chip on your shoulder?

Lead. It is a bit different this time. We have the Shadow Minister openly stating he supports the change.

That has never happened before as far as I know.

Also those who would normally campaign against such a change because it will make them accountable have been silent. Perhaps most now realise the damage that has be done to aviation in this country!

No, I don't have an angry chip on my shoulder, but it's plainly obvious from the multitude of threads on this site that you have your idea of how things should be, and all to quickly resort to name-calling and insults if other posters do not agree with your point of view. Whilst you have great experience as a private pilot, and recognizing that you were a political appointee as Chairman of CAA and CASA, you have never actually worked in aviation for a living. There are a lot people who have, but you seem disinclined to listen to any of them.
That said, the difficulty with the Civil Aviation Act is that is all, and only, about regulations applying to safety. It has nothing to do with promoting Civil Aviation. Outside the Act, there is only whatever Govt Dept has aviation under it's remit this week, so that's pretty much a dead loss most times.
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
It needs to say:
The main object of this Act is to establish an efficient and sustainable regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
CASA is another problem. It is the Safety Authority. It's functions under 9(1) to 9(4) are to purely to formulate and apply regulations pertaining to aviation safety, so it is no wonder that CASA's performance of function is defined as ...regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. That's what it was established for.
There is no other body established under the Act who's function is to promote aviation across all sectors, so you have to make CASA do it. Even if you change the purpose, the rest of the Act needs a substantial rewrite.
You need to change 9(1) of the Act to show CASA's function to be:
CASA has the function of enhancing and promoting civil aviation by conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
Perhaps how it performs that function at 9A(1)could be rewritten as:
In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek to achieve the highest levels of safety of air navigation, while maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry across all sectors.

Traffic Is Er Was, the first part of your post is ridiculous and wrong. Possibly the second part is really useful so thanks for that.

Any success I have had in life has come from asking advice and surrounding myself with capable people. James Strong once described me to a friend saying, “Dick is like a blotter,” yet you state the opposite. What I think you mean is that when I take advice (some of which is conflicting), from your experience I don’t take the advice that agrees with your own ideas and the ideas of your friends. That is very possible.

When I was first on the CAA Board, I suggested that we look around the world and copy the best. That proposal was met with complete silence. The other Board members looked at me as if I was mad. Didn’t I know that “Australia was already the best in aviation and we didn’t need to copy anything? In fact, the rest of the world should be copying us.”

I have flown over 10,000 hours – nearly all in aircraft that have been owned and paid for by myself, including some horrendous maintenance costs. I have spent lots of time in hangars and even advised people in aviation businesses to help them to stave off the day of going broke.

Are you suggesting that if I got a commercial licence and started doing joy flights that you would then respect my advice in relation to aviation? That would be simply ridiculous.

Thanks again for your really good ideas about how to improve the Act. I will work on that.

Online petition
 

I did one of those, about two years ago and got around 2500 signatures and this was transmitted to Government by AOPA.
The comments reinforced everything we’ve known, all the obvious stupidity and destruction of a perfectly good industry. The stories, hundreds of the same ilk, create an ugly picture of extreme and overbearing bureaucratic actions which has squashed the life out of General Aviation.
Nevertheless the more the merrier, any publicity or influence that Illuminates the sorry state of GA is right and positive.
Totally support a new petition which might be framed to look a change to the Act.

Traffic,
I really do wonder about you background, if you don't work for CASA.

Working in aviation for a living does not automatically make you an expert on aviation problems. I can assure you Dick listens to those worth listening to. He has a long and publicly documented history of seeking out those worth listening to, here and outside Australia.

As for "experts" working in the industry, many years ago, a senior office holder of a pilot union, a Regional captain, went on a tour of US/FAA, organised by Dick, to experience first hand, how well the US airspace system worked.

On return, he verbally reported:" Yeah, it works, but I don't care how well it works, I don't care if it is safer, we are not going to do what the f*** septics* do". His written report was, as you might imagine, equally balanced, but a little less combative in the phrasing. He is also the author of the policy that "a perception of risk" must be responded to by regulation of whatever, even when it is demonstrated that the "perceived" risk does NOT exist.

Should Dick have listened to that "industry expert"?? And the many like him.

A big part of the problem is that so many here have absolutely no experience of how aviation is conducted outside Australia, no idea that there is other than the "Australian way", all aided by the completely incorrect and wrong headed notion that Australia has a particularly good safety record, therefor what we do here must be the best.

We don't and it isn't.

It is the US that has the best air safety outcomes in every ICAO recognized category. And generally the lowest costs!!

As for the rest of your post, I am not as charitable as Dick. Do you have any idea of the number of reports and inquiries since 1988, that have all criticised the Civil Aviation Act 1988, indeed the draft bill was criticised as something cobbled up in indecent haste, and the pitfalls were pointed out, but glossed over with: "They would never interpret it so narrowly, would they". The dreaded "they".

And the first time I saw a recommendation to harmonize with US/FAA was the Minister's Annual Report to Parliament on the operation of the Air Navigation Act in 1966.

That is a lot of years, a lot of recommendations, and we are still talking about it.

Tootle pip!!

* For those of you not into rhyming slang: Yank = septic tank = septic.

Folks,

From NZ, S14 of the NZ CA Act.
Note, in particular, 14(a).
As opposed to Australia distancing the Minister completely from any responsibility.

Tootle pip!!

It was my understanding that you do require a Commercial Pilots Licence to fly turbine/jet aircraft such as C208 or the Citation.

If you want the US system, build the US infrastructure. Simple.

Problem is that everyone starts running for the exits when you talk about spending money on aviation infrastructure.

The original idea was that a fuel levy would cover the cost of the infrastructure but that got scuttled and we have now a fantastic user pays system.

BendaLot,
Looks like you are headed for a a big FAIL on your next biennial (what used to be) Flight Review, with you lack of knowledge of Aviation Law duly reported to and recorded by CASA in the approved form and process.
In fact, maybe you should voluntarily surrender your license forthwith, pending re-training.
Clearly, CASA prescribed remedial training, and re-sitting your Aviation Law (for whatever license you hold) is definitely a minimum to restore an acceptable level of safety to air navigation in the Australian skies.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Neville, we have a bleeding great fuel levy for CASA, haven't you noticed. As well, of course, for all the invented "services" we have to "buy" from CASA, plus a good chunk of taxpayer $$$$.

I hold a B1 licence.


I resat Air Legislation about 12 years back.

Is that a new CASA proposal ? Commercial Licence minimum for the Caravan?

I don't know, just my impression as a LAME was PIC of a turbine required a CPL.


I never had a reason to check that.

But was also told the AN2 was the largest aircraft that can be flown on a PPL, But I think the C208 has a greater MTOW, but still below 5,700KG. But still requiring a CPL due turbine.


Could be way wrong, just was what I have assumed over very many years.